It's going to take a while for the impact of these rules to filter down, particularly given the apparent delay in their promulgation, but the experience of the Netherlands might offer one glimpse of the future. Two years after enacting their own rules mandating that the principle of net neutrality apply to wireless and fixed broadband networks, no telecommunications apocalypse has descended upon the country and its consumers. There's a major caveat in there, however, with respect to the amount of competition between ISPs that exists in the small country.

The case for strong Open Internet rules was built on a perceived market failure for high-speed internet access. In the US, the FCC's own data show that 96% of consumers had access to broadband service with at least 6 Mbps download speed. The catch is that in the majority of major urban markets, there is effect a duopoly of providers, with two fixed broadband options. In the future, as more spectrum opens up, wireless options may become alternatives, but that's not the status quo. In the absence of strong competition, net neutrality rules become much more important.

Globally, zero-rating (i.e., the practice of giving mobile network customers a specified amount of data usage for no extra charge) poses real challenges for net neutrality on wireless networks. In countries where services like Internet.org are live, a tiered internet already effectively exists: to get access to services beyond the zero-rated bundle, a user must pay an ISP more.

While the vote made the rules official, the future of net neutrality in the US is anything but settled.

"This is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. The action that we take today is about the protection of internet openness."
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler

The Republican party appears to be split on net neutrality: some members want to defund the FCC to prevent enforcement of the rules, similar to the strategy that has been pursued with the Department of Homeland Security and a controversial immigration order from President Barack Obama. Others will seek to enact bipartisan legislation that would support weaker rules, including provisions more congenial to the powerful telecommunications companies that have spent millions upon millions of dollars on lobbying Congress over the past decade.

When they do, they'll face the ire of millions of members of a growing online public that views free expression and universal, equal access to content on fast networks as core to internet freedom.

"This is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech," said FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, in answer to the tenor of criticism. "The action that we take today is about the protection of internet openness."

"One year ago, today's decision seemed impossible," she said. "Large and powerful companies fought hard to end net neutrality. But millions of Americans — Internet users, start-ups, small businesses, artists, scholars, civil rights organizations, public interest groups and many others — organized to protect the future of the Internet. They took to the streets, used every tool the Internet has to offer, and submitted a record breaking four million comments to the FCC — and the agency listened."

Related Topics:

About Alex Howard

Alex Howard writes about how shifts in technology are changing government and society. A former fellow at Harvard and Columbia, he is the founder of "E Pluribus Unum," a blog focused on open government and technology.

Full Bio

Alex Howard writes about how shifts in technology are changing government and society. A former fellow at Harvard and Columbia, he is the founder of "E Pluribus Unum," a blog focused on open government and technology.